Effect of following recommendations for tiestall configuration on neck and leg lesions, lameness, cleanliness, and lying time in dairy cows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cow comfort in tiestalls is directly affected by stall dimensions, for which some recommendations exist. To evaluate how well Canadian dairy farms with tiestalls complied with recommendations for stall dimensions, as well as the effect of compliance on cow comfort and cleanliness, we assessed lactating Holstein cows (n = 3,485) on 100 tiestall dairy farms for neck and leg lesions, lameness, and cleanliness and measured time spent lying down. Data on stall dimensions (width and length of the stall, position and height of the tie rail, length of the chain, and height of the manger curb) were recorded for each cow. The majority of cows were housed in stalls smaller than recommended. The prevalence of lesions and lameness was high (neck, 33%; knee, 44%; hock; 58%, lameness, 25%) and the prevalence of dirtiness was low (udder, 4%; flank, 11%; legs, 4%). Chains shorter than recommended increased the risk of neck, knee, and hock lesions. A tie rail further back in the stall than recommended increased the risk of neck, knee, and hock lesions and reduced the frequency of lying bouts and the risk of a dirty udder. A tie rail set lower than recommended decreased the risk of neck lesions and lameness and increased lying time and lying bout frequency. Stalls narrower in width than recommended increased the risk of neck injuries and lameness and reduced the daily duration of lying time and the risk of a dirty flank and legs. Stalls shorter in length than recommended increased the risk of knee lesions and reduced lying bout frequency and the risk of a dirty udder. The majority of farms do not follow recommendations for stall dimensions (with the exception of tie rail height), and the lack of compliance is associated with increased risk of lesions and lameness and can affect lying time. Recommended stall dimensions tend to reduce cleanliness, but the prevalence of dirty cows remains very low.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".